Some religions and a lot of people imagine that God exists as a kind of generalized force (Star Wars) or as a positive energy source (Wayne Dyer). On the other hand, most Christians believe that God is a personal being that willfully is involved in the universe and in our lives. To Christians God is not an impersonal force but a dynamic, living and active being. However, when it comes to understanding exactly how God thinks, Christians usually visualize God as just a way-bigger one of us. He is seen as bigger and smarter and He can think a lot faster than us. We think of Him as having a super-computer brain that can calculate all possibilities in a blazing flash of speed. Therefore, He is able to predict with great accuracy all things that will happen. He stays ahead of us by out-thinking us like a chess master would a novice chess player. This vision of God’s intellect is wrong.

The first thing to realize about God is that He is a simple being. This does not mean He is simpleminded like a backwoods bumpkin. It means He does not have component parts or systems and that all things in Him are completely unified as one. What this means is that God does not have to move from one thought to the next and do what is called discursive reasoning. He sees and completely understands all things infinitely without any sequence. Thomas Aquinas puts it this way:

“There is, therefore, no succession in the divine consideration. Thus, all the He knows God considers together” (SCG I, 55, 7).

The second thing to try and grasp is that there are no time constraints on God. All of time is available to God at once. Again, here is Aquinas:

“The divine intellect, therefore, sees in the whole of eternity, as being present to it, whatever takes place through the whole course of time.” (SCG I, 66, 7).

Eternity is not a very, very long time. To be eternal is to exist outside of time. Therefore, all events that happen in time are simultaneously available to God all at once. Here, again, is Aquinas:

“Whatever is found in any part of time co-exists with what is eternal as being present to it…present to the whole of it” (SCG I, 66, 7).

At a practical level, what this means is that God does not have to predict the future. The future is totally and fully available to Him just as the present is available to us. We experience time one nano-second at a time which we call the “now.” God experiences all of time—past, present and future—all at once. His “now” is all of time. Just like we know past events to have happened in a certain way and we realize they are now frozen as past-tense completed events, so, God knows future events as they actually will be. Again, He need not predict anything. Just like I know that I had a bacon and cheese hamburger at Applebee’s for lunch yesterday and this will never change, God knows future events as real. What God knows as real cannot be anything other than what He knows.

This more accurate way of understanding God does not preclude freewill for humans. What it means is that all of our future free choices are known by God in one instantaneous, simultaneous, present-tense and intuitive thought. What we will experience as real, free choices in five or ten years from now, are fully and utterly known to God and cannot be anything other than as He knows them. One more quote from Aquinas:

“If each thing is known by God as seen by Him in the present, what is known by God will then have to be” (SCG I, 67, 10).

Mind-boggling, huh-- don’t you agree?

Next: How you think as opposed to how God thinks.

The most essential and fundamental statement given to us by the revelation of Scripture is from Genesis 1:1 “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Everything we know about God begins with this verse. It tells us several things: 1) the universe had a beginning; 2) God is the creator and originator of all things; and 3) God created everything from nothing. These insights remain on the cutting edge of philosophical speculation and scientific dispute. Of the three, the second is probably the most important because it has to do with the Who of creation and not just the how.

In natural theology, the most essential and fundamental statement is probably this one by Aquinas:

“No man wills and works evil to himself, except he apprehend it under the aspect of good. For even they who kill themselves, apprehend death itself as a good, considered as putting an end to some unhappiness or pain…” (Summa I-II, 29, 4)

Aquinas makes the case that humans cannot intentionally choose to do the bad to themselves. In all actions humans must always choose what they consider to be the good of the moment—even if it is committing suicide. This is the “first” or fundamental principle and it is built into our nature. A first principle is something that doesn’t have to be proved because you cannot honestly think the opposite, meaning you cannot think that humans always willingly choose the bad for themselves. It is self-evident that they choose the good as they see it, no matter how perverted or dangerous it may really be.--“Every agent acts for an end under the aspect of good” (Summa I-II, 94, 2).

From this principle which is inscribed upon our nature springs the first “precept” of natural law. It is, “Good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided…all other precepts of the natural law are based upon this” (Summa I-II, 94, 2).

I am continuously amazed and intrigued by Aquinas’ compact and self-assured statements. He says more in one paragraph then most theologians say in whole volumes. Essentially Aquinas tells us that because humans have an undefeatable desire for good they also have an inescapable ought—an ought with a capital “O.” That ought is that humans are to do good and avoid evil. Since we all desire good, we ought always to do good.

A corollary concept to this is that “nature does nothing in vain.” In other words, if nature has inscribed upon the human will a fundamental desire for good, then that desire has a purpose. The purpose of a first principle is manifested as an “operation”—our language for this is behavior. The behavior that ought to be manifested by the first principle that we must choose the good (or apparent good), is that we should always do good. My mom would have simply said that God designed us to be good people. What do you think?

For several years I have been threatening to write a book on stupid Christian clichés. What is a Christian cliché? It is usually a slogan or motto that sounds good and is easy to remember. Unfortunately, they are usually half-truths that contain some biblical or theological error. One of my favorites to hate is “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven.” Sounds good, but this is actually a perfect slogan for the heresy called antinomianism—a big word meaning against law. Antinomians were around in the first century and the Apostles had to counter their false teaching in a number of the books of the New Testament. Basically they believed that as long as a person “believed” in Jesus it didn’t make any difference how they lived. Paul writes about antinomian false teaching in Romans 6:1-2 (NIV) What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? [2] By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? The cliché “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven” captures the sense of the heresy of antinomianism.

Another one of my hated clichés is “God can never love you any more or any less then He does right now.” This is another feel-good slogan that salves our souls and makes us believe that no matter how bad we are God still loves us totally and unconditionally. Of course, this cliché completely ignores the witness of Scripture which clearly notes that people can be “objects of (God’s) wrath” (Eph. 2:3). I don’t know about you, but I don’t think being an object of God’s wrath is exactly the same as being the apple of God’s eye.

How can a God who is unchanging love some people and things more than others? Good question. Thomas Aquinas explores this question in Summa Contra Gentiles:

“Every divine act then is of one and the same intensity; but love may be said to admit of 'greater and less' in two ways, either in point of the good that we will to another, in which way we are said to love him more to whom we wish greater good; or again in point of the intensity of the act, in which way we are said to love him more to whom we wish, not indeed a greater good, but an equal good more fervently and effectually. In the former way then there is nothing to object to in the saying that God loves one more than another, inasmuch as He wishes him a greater good: but, understood of the second way, the saying is not tenable.” SCG I, 91, 3

What I think Thomas is saying is that God, who is unchanging, still has a will and He can willfully choose to give more of His love in the form of “good” to certain of His creatures. God, however, does not give greater good to creatures arbitrarily. God gives to His creatures justly. Therefore, it would not be a “just” thing for God to give unconditional love and good to those of His creatures who reject Him, despise Him or ignore Him. If He did, He would be unjust toward those who love Him and honor Him. The Bible expresses this in a slightly different way in Galatians 6:7 (KJV) Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. I think Paul was saying, don’t deceive your self, God is no fool, and He gives to each person what they deserve--so much for Kumbayah, sloppy-agape Christianity.

I get Rick Warren’s Ministry Toolkit web magazine. Rick, who started Saddleback Church in Southern California, is the pastor to the common man and has written and propagated the idea of the Purpose-Driven Life throughout the world. He is a great pastor and a wonderful individual. I have personally benefited from spending time with him. He has an incredible gift from God for reaching the irreligious person in our postmodern culture.

One of the things that Rick has done very well is to de-mystify a lot of religious teaching and make it accessible to the average person. I love this. However, Rick, like the rest of us, lives within a certain cultural context. His context is the evangelical world. Therefore, when Rick teaches on such things as spiritual growth, though he does it in a very clear, reasonable and lucid way, his teaching still reflects Evangelicalism—in all its strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately, one of the greatest weaknesses of Evangelicalism is its anti-historical approach to sanctification or personal spiritual growth. Evangelicalism generally draws upon the limited resources available to it stretching back only 450 years to the Reformation. It, for all intents and purposes, assumes that nothing of value comes out of the Western Church for 1,500 years before Luther and Calvin and that the whole Eastern Orthodox tradition going back to the first century is non-existent. Consequently, when Rick teaches on spiritual growth, as he recently did in an article titled De-mystify Spiritual Growth he presents it as something achievable like physical health based upon exercising certain habits. Here is part of what he wrote:

“Anyone can become physically fit if he or she will regularly do certain exercises and practice good health habits. Likewise, spiritual fitness is no mystery. It is simply a matter of learning certain spiritual exercises and being disciplined to do them until they become habits. Character is shaped by the habits we develop.”

The spiritual habits Rick is referring to are centered on the five aspects of the Purpose-Driven life which are fellowship, spiritual maturity, service, evangelism, and worship. These habits include a daily quiet time, study of God’s Word, tithing and service. None of this is wrong or bad, it just ignores what the church established during the apostolic era, developed through Augustine and fully cultivated in Thomas Aquinas’ magisterial writings. What I am referring to are the Cardinal and Theological Virtues. Here is what Augustine said:

“Now the spiritual life is perfected by the virtues, since it is ‘by them’ that ‘we lead a good life,’” as Augustine states (De Lib. Arb. ii, 17, 19) and “Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii, 19) that ‘virtue is that by which we live righteously.’”

The fact is Augustine and Christians for over 1500 years believed that the only way that one could become mature as a Christian was to develop habits of virtue—specifically, growing in the Cardinal (Prudence, Justice, Temperance and Fortitude) and Theological Virtues (Faith, Hope and Love). However, ask any modern Christian to identify the Cardinal Virtues and what you are likely to get is a blank stare. As Professor James G. Williams wonderfully notes:

“Thomistic reflections on vice, virtue and the moral life are without parallel; tragically, the insights of the good doctor rarely make their way into evangelical thought and life.”

To say the least, modern and ancient Christians represent very different views of how one becomes a mature Christian. The question would be who is right. A lot is at stake. For my money, I side with the ancient and medieval church. I agree with them, the only way to grow to maturity in Christ is through the virtues. A personal quiet time is good, reading the Bible is good, tithing is good and service is good. However, unless one develops prudence to direct temperance and fortitude in order to gain self-mastery over one’s passions, there will be no spiritual maturity. Simply put, Rick Warren’s approach to spiritual growth may seem like a de-mystified way to get at spiritual growth, but it actually remains a very mystifying process. How actually does reading the Bible make someone a better person? How does having a personal quiet time help a guy stop surfing the web for pornography? I assume I am to believe that these activities magically make a person better. Unfortunately, I have never experienced this. On the other hand, understanding and developing in the Theological and Cardinal Virtues has produced positive results in my life. It is very de-mystifying.

James G. Williams, Professor Emeritus of Religion at Syracuse University writes:
“Thomistic (Thomas Aquinas) reflections on vice, virtue and the moral life are without parallel; tragically, the insights of the good doctor rarely make their way into evangelical thought and life. Frequently overlooked by most Protestants is the fact that the great scholastics were motivated to clarify the meaning of fides quaerens intellectum.
It is scarcely any wonder then that late–twentieth–century evangelical Protestants are rarely found among ethicists, moral philosophers, or policy analysts.”

Ah, Professor Williams, I am afraid, is very correct. Evangelical Christians are both uninformed about the towering achievements of Thomas and woefully unprepared to effectively debate about and combat the downward slide of American ethical thought. The thing to be aware of is that these two facts are interrelated. In other words, because evangelicals know virtually nothing about Aquinas’ moral writings, we have no solid footing from which to debate secularists. All evangelicals are left with is our default position which is to declare, “Well, the Bible says…” However, few, if any secularists accept the Bible as a document worthy of moral consent. Aquinas, on the other hand, practically invented the whole field of natural law for Western Civilization. He not only was a master of Scriptural interpretation, but he reasoned out every conceivable moral dilemma using arguments grounded on common sense. Again, unfortunately, many evangelicals are adverse to the use of common sense, fearing that somehow this discredits God. They seem to ignore such passages as:

Romans 2:14-17 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
Romans 1:18-20 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Natural law appeals to the common knowledge of God and His just requirements that can be discovered by reason from nature and from man’s own inner witness of conscience. It is time for evangelicals to awaken to this rich and wonderful body of Christian moral teaching.